The precedent-setting first one to have her decades long career of acting and activism cast aside and replaced by the “IRRELEVANT description, she showed up Wikipedia for what it really is: a clearing house for the progressive-left.

How Telling the Truth Now Makes You “Irrelevant”

The same day you tell the truth about what a disaster a Hillary Clinton presidency would have been, your entire career as an actress and activist will go down as “IRRELEVANT” on your Wikipedia entry.

Up for the whole world to see for 17 minutes, this was the Wikipedia bio for Susan Sarandon before it was edited out under the ready editing excuse of “vandalism”:

“Susan Abigail Sarandon (/səˈrændən/; née Tomalin; born October 4, 1946)[1] is an irrelevant American actress and activist. She is an Academy Award and BAFTA Award winner who is also known for her social and political activism for a variety of causes. She was appointed a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador in 1999 and received the Action Against HungerHumanitarian Award in 2006.”

Love or hate Sarandon, she’s anything but “irrelevant”

Love or hate Sarandon, she’s anything but “irrelevant”.

Stating in newspaper headlines that ‘Feminism is ‘warped’ and that ‘Hillary Was Dangerous’, unhinged the unhinged.

Had Sarandon been of the male rather than the female gender, would she have been immediately outed as a sexual harasser?

“Sarandon says that liberals hate her now that she’s spoken out against the failed Democratic nominee. (Daily Wire, Nov. 26, 2017)

“Actress Susan Sarandon says she’s become incredibly unpopular, but she’s not blaming conservatives, who have in the past spoken out against her visible far-left politics — she’s blaming liberals.”

Blaming liberals for anything is a dangerous practice guaranteed to ostracize you

Blaming liberals for anything is a dangerous practice guaranteed to ostracize you.

In a world where telling the truth is a felony, there are certain things you won’t get away with saying, Miz Susie.

And telling the truth about Hillary Clinton is the biggest ‘no!-no!’ of them all.

“The 71-year-old actress told the Guardian on Sunday that she’s suffering a wave of attacks because during the 2016 presidential election she chose not to back Hillary Clinton and instead backed the third party candidate, Jill Stein. (Daily Wire)

“I’m not attacked from the right at all,” Sarandon told the U.K.‘s left-leaning publication. Instead, she says, “she is accused of not checking her white privilege, of throwing away her vote on a third-party candidate during the U.S. presidential election, and of recklessly espousing a political cause that let Trump in through the backdoor.”

It was never “recklessly espousing a political cause” that “let Trump in through the backdoor” because he and his 63 million voters boldly crashed in through the front door.

The front door crash through by Trump supporters drove the progressive-left, instead of the watching world, right over the edge.

Continued below...

Front door crash by Trump drove progressive-left right over the edge

“The interview focuses mostly on Sarandon’s continued success as an actress despite being in her seventh decade — an age that many in Hollywood would consider simply too old — but Sarandon, who has always been politically involved even when other celebrities were shying away from even outspoken liberal-ness (hardly a courageous position to take in the entertainment industry), says it’s her political ideals that seem to have caused her the most trouble. (Daily Wire)

“First, feminism. “I think of myself as a humanist because I think it’s less alienating to people who think of feminism as being a load of strident bitches,” Sarandon says. “[T]hat image of the shrill woman became the definition of a feminist for a long time. And women had a right to be angry, and to feel empowered. But that was just one glimpse of a fairly emotional and strident definition, and there was a period when young women didn’t want that label.”

“Now, she says, that label has come to fruition, especially when it comes to Hillary Clinton. If you weren’t among the Democratic candidate’s most ardent public supporters, you were simply a traitor to your own gender. “It’s come back, and it’s gotten warped, especially with the election, where if you’re a woman you have to support Hillary Clinton,” Sarandon complains.

“The election was a flash point for Sarandon, who says that she’s now a regular subject of liberal ire, especially because she’s remained critical of Clinton even after the nominee lost to Donald Trump. In fact, although Sarandon hasn’t said that Donald Trump was the less dangerous choice, she seems to think that way — because Clinton would have been destructive to the Democratic party from within.

“I did think she was very, very dangerous. We would still be fracking, we would be at war. It wouldn’t be much smoother. Look what happened under Obama that we didn’t notice.

“She would’ve done it the way Obama did it,” says Sarandon, “which was sneakily. He deported more people than have been deported now. How he got the Nobel peace prize I don’t know. I think it was very important to have a black family in the White House and I think some of the stuff he did was good. He tried really hard about healthcare. But he didn’t go all the way because of big Pharma.”

Google Clinton and Obama and you will find that they are irrefutable saints, they care—really CARE about minorities, all women and children unless they happen to vote Republican.

Like Google, everyone checks out Wikipedia bios.

Nonetheless, by telling truth impossible to bear, Sarandon unwittingly delivered to the world a big favor.

The precedent-setting first one to have her decades long career of acting and activism cast aside and replaced by the “IRRELEVANT description, she showed up Wikipedia for what it really is: a clearing house for the progressive-left.

RSS Feed for Judi McLeodJudi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com.

Canada Free Press

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2018 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2018 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement